無形資產：國家智慧資本、更佳生活指標、社會進步指標與永續社會指標相關性研究 | Publication | NCCU Academic Hub

Publications-NSC Projects

Article View/Open

html(10)

Publication Export

Google Scholar^TM

NCCU Library

Discovery System

Citation Infomation

No doi shows Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

Simple Record
Full Record

題名	無形資產：國家智慧資本、更佳生活指標、社會進步指標與永續社會指標相關性研究 Intangible Assets: the Relationship between National Intellectual Capital, Better Life Index, Social Progress Index and Sustainable Society Index
作者	林月雲
貢獻者	企管系
關鍵詞	智慧資本; 社會資本; 人力資本; 結構資本; 無形資產; 組織绩效 intangible assets; intellectual capital; better life index; social progress index; sustainable society index
日期	2017-10
上傳時間	4-Jun-2026 13:10:00 (UTC+8)
摘要	Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—直是衡量國家發展的指標，然而GDP未必能完全反映國家發展的全貌，例如平等、社會凝聚力或環境。過去幾十年來，無形資產如知識、專利、與創新已被認為是財富與進步的主要來源。因此越來越多學者尋找能反映國家富足的新方法。個人國家智慧資本的研究反映了一個國家於人力資源發展、國際間經貿關係、基礎建設投資、更新能力建構以及財務管理上的成果。若與瑞士 IMD出版的世界競爭力年鑑、世界經濟論壇(WEF)出版的全球競爭力報告相較，後兩者均以經濟發展為導向，國家智慧資本研究則以無形資產為主，因此本研究選擇與「更佳生活指標（BLI)」、「社會進步指標（SPI)」與「永續社會指標（SSI)」進行比較研究。本研究目的有四：第一、驗證個人修改過的國家智慧資本(NIC)模型以反映現今關注的議題，例如環保與平等。第二、比較NIC, BLI, SPI與SSI的排名。第三、檢視NIC, BLI, SPI和 SSI之關係。第四、找出不同組合的隱藏模型以提供政策建議。本研究預期達到下列四個目標：精進個人過去的研究成果並與其他指標連結，探討國家進步的重要因素。其次，發現各種指標之互補性，以瞭解健康富足國家之全貌。再者，分析此四種排名之關係，及如何整併與分類。最後，研究結果可以提供建立健康富足國家的指引。 For decades, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the yardstick to measure a nation’s development. However, GDP measures income, but not equality and it ignores values like social cohesion and the environment. It becomes increasingly evident that a model of development based on economic progress alone is incomplete. Porter, Stern and Green report that a society that fails to address basic human needs, equip citizens to improve their quality of life, protect the environment, and provide opportunity for many of its citizens is not succeeding. Therefore, researchers around the world are searching new ways to better reflect national wellbeing. Over the past few decades, intangible assets, such as knowledge, patents and innovation, have been identified as fundamental sources of wealth and progress. National competitiveness, national wealth, and economic development are issues of concern for national leaders, policy makers, and world organizations. As a result, various kinds of national ranking have caught the attention of relevant parties, such as the World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD). The Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Such ranking enables national leaders to locate the relative position of their own nation in the global arena, find a benchmarking nation, and then appropriately strategize their policies for securing national development and competitiveness. Country rankings based on the index provides a systematic and empirical foundation to guide strategy for inclusive growth. National intellectual capital reflects a nation’s past efforts in terms of human resource development, national economic relationships, infrastructural investment, renewal capability building, and national financial management. The two well cited reports mentioned above, IMD’s World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report are more economic development oriented. My past research, national intellectual capital, is more intangible assets oriented. For proper comparison, I choose the Better Life Index, Social Progress Index and Sustainable Society Index that also focus on the intangibles. This study aims to achieve four goals. First, validate my expanded national intellectual model that encompassed current concerns, such as environmental and equality issues. Second, compare and contrast country rankings of my new expanded National Intellectual Capital model (NIC), OECD’s Better Life Index (BLI), Porter et al.’s Social Progress Index (SPI) and SSF’s Sustainable Society Index (SSI). Third, examine the relationships among NIC, BLI, SPI and SSI. Fourth, find the hidden patterns of the countries with various dimensional combinations for policy suggestions. The value of this research is four folds. First, it connects my research results to other national rankings for cross-validation, as Natoli and Zuhair measure national progress through a comparison of the GDP, HDI (Human Development Index), GS (genuine savings) and the RIE (resource-infrastructure-environment). Second, it may detect the complementarity of different types of ranking for readers to get a holistic view of national wellbeing. Third, it helps reveal the relationships among these four types of national ranking for potential consolidation and cluster mapping. Fourth, it may provide some guidelines for building national wellbeing.
關聯	科技部, MOST105-2410-H004-152, 105.08-106.07
資料類型	report

dc.contributor	企管系
dc.creator (作者)	林月雲
dc.date (日期)	2017-10
dc.date.accessioned	4-Jun-2026 13:10:00 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.available	4-Jun-2026 13:10:00 (UTC+8)	-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間)	4-Jun-2026 13:10:00 (UTC+8)	-
dc.identifier.uri (URI)	https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/item?item_id=182751	-
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—直是衡量國家發展的指標，然而GDP未必能完全反映國家發展的全貌，例如平等、社會凝聚力或環境。過去幾十年來，無形資產如知識、專利、與創新已被認為是財富與進步的主要來源。因此越來越多學者尋找能反映國家富足的新方法。個人國家智慧資本的研究反映了一個國家於人力資源發展、國際間經貿關係、基礎建設投資、更新能力建構以及財務管理上的成果。若與瑞士 IMD出版的世界競爭力年鑑、世界經濟論壇(WEF)出版的全球競爭力報告相較，後兩者均以經濟發展為導向，國家智慧資本研究則以無形資產為主，因此本研究選擇與「更佳生活指標（BLI)」、「社會進步指標（SPI)」與「永續社會指標（SSI)」進行比較研究。本研究目的有四：第一、驗證個人修改過的國家智慧資本(NIC)模型以反映現今關注的議題，例如環保與平等。第二、比較NIC, BLI, SPI與SSI的排名。第三、檢視NIC, BLI, SPI和 SSI之關係。第四、找出不同組合的隱藏模型以提供政策建議。本研究預期達到下列四個目標：精進個人過去的研究成果並與其他指標連結，探討國家進步的重要因素。其次，發現各種指標之互補性，以瞭解健康富足國家之全貌。再者，分析此四種排名之關係，及如何整併與分類。最後，研究結果可以提供建立健康富足國家的指引。
dc.description.abstract (摘要)	For decades, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been the yardstick to measure a nation’s development. However, GDP measures income, but not equality and it ignores values like social cohesion and the environment. It becomes increasingly evident that a model of development based on economic progress alone is incomplete. Porter, Stern and Green report that a society that fails to address basic human needs, equip citizens to improve their quality of life, protect the environment, and provide opportunity for many of its citizens is not succeeding. Therefore, researchers around the world are searching new ways to better reflect national wellbeing. Over the past few decades, intangible assets, such as knowledge, patents and innovation, have been identified as fundamental sources of wealth and progress. National competitiveness, national wealth, and economic development are issues of concern for national leaders, policy makers, and world organizations. As a result, various kinds of national ranking have caught the attention of relevant parties, such as the World Competitiveness Yearbook published by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD). The Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Such ranking enables national leaders to locate the relative position of their own nation in the global arena, find a benchmarking nation, and then appropriately strategize their policies for securing national development and competitiveness. Country rankings based on the index provides a systematic and empirical foundation to guide strategy for inclusive growth. National intellectual capital reflects a nation’s past efforts in terms of human resource development, national economic relationships, infrastructural investment, renewal capability building, and national financial management. The two well cited reports mentioned above, IMD’s World Competitiveness Yearbook and WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report are more economic development oriented. My past research, national intellectual capital, is more intangible assets oriented. For proper comparison, I choose the Better Life Index, Social Progress Index and Sustainable Society Index that also focus on the intangibles. This study aims to achieve four goals. First, validate my expanded national intellectual model that encompassed current concerns, such as environmental and equality issues. Second, compare and contrast country rankings of my new expanded National Intellectual Capital model (NIC), OECD’s Better Life Index (BLI), Porter et al.’s Social Progress Index (SPI) and SSF’s Sustainable Society Index (SSI). Third, examine the relationships among NIC, BLI, SPI and SSI. Fourth, find the hidden patterns of the countries with various dimensional combinations for policy suggestions. The value of this research is four folds. First, it connects my research results to other national rankings for cross-validation, as Natoli and Zuhair measure national progress through a comparison of the GDP, HDI (Human Development Index), GS (genuine savings) and the RIE (resource-infrastructure-environment). Second, it may detect the complementarity of different types of ranking for readers to get a holistic view of national wellbeing. Third, it helps reveal the relationships among these four types of national ranking for potential consolidation and cluster mapping. Fourth, it may provide some guidelines for building national wellbeing.
dc.format.extent	116 bytes	-
dc.format.mimetype	text/html	-
dc.relation (關聯)	科技部, MOST105-2410-H004-152, 105.08-106.07
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	智慧資本; 社會資本; 人力資本; 結構資本; 無形資產; 組織绩效
dc.subject (關鍵詞)	intangible assets; intellectual capital; better life index; social progress index; sustainable society index
dc.title (題名)	無形資產：國家智慧資本、更佳生活指標、社會進步指標與永續社會指標相關性研究
dc.title (題名)	Intangible Assets: the Relationship between National Intellectual Capital, Better Life Index, Social Progress Index and Sustainable Society Index
dc.type (資料類型)	report